M.L.JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal by the Municipal Council, Alwar, against judgment of the Magistrate First Class, Alwar dated 16 -11 -70 by which he acquitted the accused Bhulu Ram Meena of Alwar of the offence under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
(2.) I have heard arguments and perused the record. Briefly ststed, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 31 -7 -68, Food Inspector Shambhu Datt at about 8 00 p.m. inspected the shop of the accused Bhulu Ram in Malakhera Darwaja, Alwar. He was found selling cow's milk and a sample thereof was purchased by the said Inspector. Upon examination by the Public Health Laboratory, Alwar the said sample was found to contain 5.8% fat and 7.2% solid non fat. The report (Ex. P/3) of the public analyst is dated 9.8.68 in which he bad said that the sample of cow milk is adulterated as it contained about 15% of added water. The food Inspector filed a complaint under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The learned Magistrate by his impugned judgment held that from the statement of the Food Inspector Shambhu Datt P.W. 1 it Was not clear when and how the sample was sent to the public analyst. It was also not proved whether the bottles in which the sample was placed were dry and clean and whether they were properly packed and sealed. The food Inspector simply stated that the samples were sealed according to rules which the learned Magistrate considered was not sufficient because according to him the provisions of the relevant rules were manda ory. One of the three bottles of sample was also not produced in the court along with the challan. The learned Magistrate further held that it was also not proved whether any of the two witnesses of the purchase of the milk were present at the spot or not Kripa Ram PW 2 simply said that he had seen the sample in the possession of the food inspector and he had only signed the recovery memo. It shows that he arrived after the Inspector had completed his proceedings. Chunni Lal PW 3 even denied that the formalities of recovery memo were completed in his presence. He did not remember how many bottles were there and therefore the learned Magistrate thought that this witness did not support the prosecution case. It was urged before the learned Magistrate that conviction could be based upon the solitary evidence of Shambhu Datt Inspector but the learned Magistrate rejected this argument because he did not consider the food Inspector a man of sterling worth. The Magistrate observed that it. is also not established whether the milk was of a cow or not and whether preservative in fact was added to the sample Finally, he was of the view that the offence was not established beyond reasonable doubt.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Municipal Council, Alwar challenged the findings of acquittal and urged that such offence should be sternly dealt with. He drew my attention to Shabmhu Narain v. Moti Lal 1971 WLN 108 para 10 wherein it was observed that it is the duty of the Court not to given weight to sentimentality but to apply the law as it is. The adulteration of milk is an anti social offence which affects the health of the people. Next he cited Khaju v. State 1971 WLN 409 para 6 where adulteration of 11% of added water in the milk was considered as no small scale adulteration and the sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ - was maintained. The learned Counsel also questioned the findings of the learned Magistrate regarding the violation of the rules regarding packing and sealing. He contended that the Magistrate has not mentioned the specific rules which are said to have been violated Further, the evidence of the inspector was rejected without any good reason It appears to me that the objections raised by the harried Magistrate were not correct. If he had cared to read Ex. P/2, most of his doubts would have been dispelled in respect of the procedure adopted by the Inspector and of the compliance of the rules. That form also shows that the milk was cow milk The inspector also deposed that he had added preservative to the sample. But the question for consideration is whether the acquittal should be set aside.;